Site Meter

This past weekend, I thought quite a bit about how to blog the Barack Obama presidency. There were several ideas -- a news blog with snarky commentary about everything he does; a satire blog dedicated to "Our Messiah," etc. But to tell you the truth, right now I don't feel very adversarial. I know too many good people who voted for the guy. And the last thing that I want to see is a repeat of the last 8 years of vulgar, unhinged hatred like that which has been given to President Bush. I don't want to suffer from Obama Derangement Syndrome, comparing him to Hitler or Stalin on a daily basis, accusing him of murder and bloodlust, threatening impeachment at the drop of a hat, and denouncing half of the country as vile, terminally stupid cretins. I have a life to live, and that level of hating takes way too much effort.

On the other hand, our nation is desperately in deed of guardians, people who are willing to look at Obama's ideas with a critical eye and offer opinions about them, rather than blindly accepting everything and filling the airwaves and cyberspace with propaganda. Sadly, the mainstream news media in this country is no longer capable of fulfilling that role.

The mainstream media's bold uncuriosity about Obama's past (save for the carefully-crafted narratives supplied by Obama's handlers and Obama himself -- and remember how awful it was for George W. Bush to be "uncurious"?) was both frustrating and at times comical. They could dig up John McCain's torturer in Vietnam, and they had no problem attempting to solicit dirt on Cindy McCain from teenage friends of the McCain children via Facebook messages, and they could rush a gaggle of investigative reporters onto the next flight to Anchorage to dredge up everyone and everything ever associated with Sarah Heath Palin.

But they could never be bothered to assemble major investigative pieces that included interviews with the "Marxist professors" Obama claims he hung out with in college, or the occupants of the neighborhoods that he represented (with the exception of one newspaper, The Boston Globe), or interviews with high school or college buddies with whom he admitted attending "socialist conferences," or his high school or college drug dealers; or extensive front-page profiles of Chicago cronies like Anthony Rezko or his long-time mentor and adviser William Ayres. They begrudgingly reported on Obama's impoverished extended family only after being scooped by the foreign press and (again) one newspaper, The Boston Globe. Most major pieces on Obama were published 9 months ago or longer -- much longer -- and the mainstream media had no desire to keep the information in those articles above the page fold in the weeks leading up to the election.

Truth is, with few exceptions, we've completely lost the skeptical inquirers who once populated the ranks of the American mainstream news media. They no longer see a need to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable," perhaps because they believe that with Barack Obama in charge, the Federal Government will do that job for them. They've admitted their biases. They are in the tank for the Obama Administration, and they are committed to the success of his administration, objectivity be damned.

So what can I do as a blogger? What can you do as an average citizen?

For starters, stay positive. Stay hopeful. No one, except for a few fringe kooks, really wants to see our nation suffer. We simply have different ideas about what a prosperous future for America should look like. Conservatives want a community of free individuals. Liberals want a collective managed by a benevolent government. It's okay to oppose ideas that you believe are harmful. It's okay to oppose ideas that chip away at the core values of America. Columnist Cliff May notes:

Give Obama his due: It is an exceptional politician who can win the
support of Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam, and Kenneth
Duberstein, former chief of staff to President Reagan; of William
Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist and Christopher Buckley, son of William
F. Buckley, founder of modern conservatism; of Rashid Khalidi, an
Israel-hater, and Edgar Bronfman, former head of the World Jewish
Congress. Here's a not-very-bold prediction: A year from now, someone
is going to be sorely disappointed. (emphasis added)

We can clearly define the concepts of voluntary community and individual freedom. There will be passionate arguments about birthrights, about heritage, about privilege, about what we are owed by our government and about how those debts are to be paid. We can explain that in America, the state does not -- and should not -- define the individual. We can argue that the individual should never be forced to turn over whatever he has to the state, even for seemingly benevolent purposes. We can champion individual charity, which is conspicuously absent among socialist European nations that heavily tax and regulate their citizens. I could go on, but you get the idea.

It's also okay to be funny - apparently Comedy Central isn't interested in the presidency any more, so the market for White House humor is now wide-open. Maybe they spent all their creative energy on Li'l Bush and That's My Bush. Or maybe they're still struggling to come up with a good double entendre for "Obama." At any rate, nothing should stop us from having some good clean fun with the Presidency and Congress.

What ever we do, the ultimate goal should be dialog. During this campaign, the press deliberately chose to end dialog and replace it with directive, based on their narrative of how a better America should be achieved. Many conservatives recognized this, and out of frustration they hit back with extremely partisan commentary that further eroded the ability to reasonably discuss the election and the ideas of the candidates.

For my part, I am planning to launch a series of dialogs on my blog. I'll suggest a topic (something like "how do we define centrist?") and then invite bloggers and commenters to contribute their thoughts. Hopefully such dialogs will help to build a loyal readership base (something I have yet to really successfully accomplish) and at the same time, contribute something positive to the national conversations about current problems and how government should (or should not) involve itself in their solutions.

It seems to me that now, blogs really are "alternative media," and if you are looking for informative discussion instead of instructional propaganda, you will be looking for those discussions online. Join me, won't you?

Michelle Malkin has a chilling round-up of violent reactions and threats made by unhinged gay activists in California in the wake of Tuesday's Proposition 8 victory. Proposition 8 specified that "marriage" is solely the union of a man and a woman. Some incidents being reported:

A San Diego man physically assaulted his elderly neighbors because of a Proposition 8 sign in their yard

Commenters and bloggers on radical gay sites are threatening to disrupt weddings, physically assault or kill Prop 8 supporters, and burn down churches

Last year, Oklahoma state representative Sally Kern made a speech about the radical gay agenda. She compared the danger posed by radical gays to that posed by terrorists (the same comparison Rosie O'Donnell made concerning Christian fundamentalists). You can agree or disagree with what she said, but Rep. Kern simply made a speech. A speech. No threats, no intimidation, no physical violence. Yet she was creamed by liberal blogs, gay activists, and show business personalities for what she said.

Fast-forward to today, to the aftermath of Prop. 8. Think the mainstream press will make page one news out of it these unhinged threats? Think Ellen Degeneres will call Lawrence Pizzicara and demand to know why he attacked his neighbors? The only reaction we'll get from the liberal chattering class is the sound of crickets chirping.

Assault, arson, murder. I dunno ... it sure sounds like terrorism to me.

_____________________________________________________________

One more thing - if gay rights groups hate Christians and the institutionalized church so much, then why do they demand marriage, which is a religious sacrament performed by licensed clergy? Why would they want the church involved at all? If the whole "gay marriage" thing is nothing but an "equal protection under the law" issue, then why not promote secular civil unions, administered by the state and completely void of any religious affiliation? Wouldn't that make things simpler for everyone?

I believe that legalizing "gay marriage" will only pave the way for radical gay activists to begin to harass religious organizations with discrimination and equal protection lawsuits -- particularly churches that are clear in their refusal to perform gay wedding ceremonies. Is that what we really want? Let's give gays equal protection through civil unions, and leave "marriage" out of it.

...

ADDED: My blog friend LaShawn Barber, who is sickened by the "gay marriage=civil rights movement" argument of radical gay activists, notes that California already allows state-sanctioned domestic partnerships. Perhaps this is why Californians continually vote to keep marriage sacred -- a measure similar to Proposition 8 passed with 61% of the vote in 2000, only to be struck down by the California Supreme Court this year.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. "YOU NIGGER," one man shouted at me. "If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger."
Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the
temple...me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and
a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

I believe that gay activists should simply face the truth: "Thus far, 30 states have outlawed homosexual "marriages" by an average
close to 70% approval by voters through amendments to the state
constitutions." There is clearly an opposition among the general public to gay marriages. Not domestic partnerships or civil unions for gays, but gay marriage.

Gay activists can attack religious groups until they are blue in the face, but the election results clearly indicate that the opposition to gay marriage goes way beyond hard-core fundamentalist Christians, and deep into the mainstream of America. They can falsely accuse the Christian Coalition and other groups of staging hate or fear campaigns, but the truth is that such tactics (were they employed) could never consistently deliver two-and-a-half to one opposition to gay marriage, if people really believed in their hearts that it was a civil right necessary for a free and prosperous nation. Hatemongers like Fred Phelps are not the driving force behind the opposition to gay marriage.

Unfortunately, gay rights activists are even less capable of swaying popular opinion in their favor than the Religious Right. Gay activists have been, for the most part, obnoxious, intimidating, vulgar, and violent, and they have delighted in scandalizing and deliberately offending their opponents. This makes many people (including myself) continually fearful of what their next move is going to be.

Perhaps the gay community should start by firing the current group of malcontents and agitators currently leading its protests, publishing its newspapers and magazines, and writing its blogs. Find people instead who are willing to have conversations. Dialog is the key here, not shouting obscenities through a bullhorn or engaging in crude stereotyping and name-calling. The sincerity and civility that gay activists use to address and motivate their own people should carry over to their conversations with community and religious leaders. In other words, don't become like Fred Phelps in order to stop Fred Phelps.

Or maybe the gay community could involve its people in a series of smaller, proactive projects that create a more direct and positive impact in local neighborhoods. For example, sponsoring a food or clothing drive during the holidays for needy families will garner much more support than marching through the streets wearing leather and chains and yelling into bullhorns. It's all about winning people's trust, rather than bullying or frightening them.

No big surprises here. Arizona can't very well support tough sanctions against businesses that hire illegal aliens, because such a measure would essentially put every company that hires laborers out of business.

Perhaps the voters in Washington state are concerned about the disproportionately high cost of health care for the terminally ill during their final months of life. Or perhaps they are anxious for a simple, guaranteed way to eliminate suffering when they become ill. If only life were that easy.

They'll be tokin' it up big time in Michigan. Dude!

America still hasn't warmed up to gay marriage and gay adoptions. I only support secular civil unions, and gay foster parenting/adoption as a last resort, if there is an emergency and no other suitable foster home is available.

Many Americans believe that affirmative action has run its course and needs to be retired. This is interesting, since a majority of Americans just voted for a President who essentially believes that affirmative action was not enough, and that we must redistribute wealth in addition to giving racial minorities preference.

Finally, Americans still seem to feel that abortion is a private issue, and that there should be as little government interference with abortion as possible. I think most Americans agree that abortion should be legally available (even if you don't agree with the procedure) and should be safe. The big question is, how "rare" should it be? Partisans on both sides of that question -- unrestricted access vs. a nearly complete ban -- will never see a majority agree with either extreme position.

I think that these results show that while Americans are dissatisfied with the status quo and are longing for new visionary leadership, their basic ideals and beliefs have not changed. In short, this probably means that a hard pull to the left will not be enthusiastically received. Just some food for thought, as the Left prepares to run wild with their new "mandate" to rule America.

Conservative blogs are going wild over an excerpt from a 2001 interview with Barack Obama that was originally broadcast on Chicago Public Radio, WBEZ. Here is what Obama says that is so stunning:

You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights
movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it
succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples.
So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit
at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be
okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of
redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political
and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that
extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren
Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential
constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the
Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court
interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a
charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to
you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t
say what the federal government or the state government must do on your
behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the
tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights
movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency
to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities
on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of
power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some
ways we still suffer from that. (emphasis added)

My first reaction when I read this quote this morning was simply, "Okay, now we know what the Obama "litmus test" for Supreme Court justice nominees will be."

Sure, Obama says that the Court itself cannot specifically order the confiscation and redistribution of wealth. That would be unconstitutional. But the
massive power grabs that Congress must necessarily impose in order to
make socialism a reality here in the USA will certainly generate
numerous individual lawsuits challenging their constitutionality.

Just as FDR packed the Supreme Court with sympathetic justices
in order to legitimize the Constitutionality of the New Deal, so must
Barack Obama pack his Supreme Court with socialist justices, in order
to legitimize his redistribution plans. Someone has to keep discovering and defending those emanations and penumbras.

I also believe that any appellate court justice
who embraces the notion of "social justice" through the government-enforced redistribution
of wealth would, almost without exception, support
government-sanctioned abortion on demand. Therefore the abortion
"litmus test" is redundant and can probably be ignored. This will be to
Obama's advantage, as it could make his appointees more palatable to
the Religious Right.

What Obama actually seems to be advocating is a rebirth of the Poor People's Campaign,
which was about to be undertaken by Martin Luther King, Jr. at the time
of his assassination. The PPC was focused on the plight of all
poor Americans, regardless of race or geographic location. King's plans
included a demand for an "Economic Bill of Rights" that, among other
things, guaranteed a living wage-based permanent income for the poor.
You should also recall that Dr. King unapologetically supported government-sanctioned wealth redistribution
and himself wrote, "good and just society is neither the thesis of
capitalism nor the antithesis of communism, but a socially conscious
democracy which reconciles the truths of individualism and
collectivism."

MLK is considered a modern-day prophet. Could Obama's embrace of MLK's ultimate fight be the deed that elevates Obama to the level of modern-day Messiah?

In America, we have a Constitution that was written by a group of men
whose lives had been deeply affected by persecution at the hands of
various government and religious groups. The men who wrote the
Constitution wanted to make sure that future generations did not suffer from persecution as they had. That's why they wrote the Constitution in a way that stressed the limits of the government. They wanted to ensure that the government of the United States never directly interfered with the ability of its individual citizens to fully enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Has America been perfect in this regard? Of course not. Our economy has occasionally been overtaken by robber-barons. Our citizens once held slaves. Local and state governments used denial of the franchise as a powerful political weapon. Our Federal government stood by while its citizens faced discrimination and persecution. And in some cases, the government led that persecution. But even for all our failings, the principle of freedom for the individual has never been abolished.

But Barack Obama wants to change that. To Obama, the failure of the Supreme Court to eliminate the limiting character of the Constitution is a tragedy! Obama wants a Constitution that empowers the government, rather than limiting it. He wants a Constitution that gives the Federal Government a mandate to guarantee financial equity and equality of outcome for all Americans, presumably with an unlimited scope of power in order to be able to enforce that mandate. And he believes that such a Constitution is the only hope for the collective salvation of our nation.

This is, in short, the most radical vision for "reinventing government" ever articulated by a major (and currently leading) Presidential candidate. And it scares the living hell out of me.

But Mike, if you're really a Christian, don't you want to see hunger and hopelessness abolished? Don't you want to see an end to the suffering of the working poor? Don't you want to see everyone have a fair chance?

Absolutely. And I have been involved in Christian social justice efforts here in Oklahoma City for about two years now. I have even attended community organizing meetings. But I would like to see true change, brought about by spiritual revival and the work of the Holy Spirit, not government mandates. Because such mandates will give the Federal Government an incredibly dangerous amount of power over our bank accounts, our income, and our private lives. And trust me, it will be used to punish those who don't toe the party line -- regardless of what party is in control. That kind of a power grab by the Federal Government is not a manifestation of "holiness," nor is it "justice," nor will it increase freedom or security for anyone. We don't need it and I don't want it. Period.

ADDED: If you want to understand the dangers of giving government absolute power to enforce its own definition of "fairness," then you should watch this disturbing video, part of a 1982 documentary on the Weather Underground -- the group co-founded and led by Barack Obama's mentor Bill Ayers -- entitled No Place To Hide:

It features former FBI informant Larry Grathwohl, who infiltrated
the Weather Underground and helped law enforcement put an end to their terrorist activities. Grathwohl's tips stopped several attempted bombing attacks by
the group. In the video, Grathwohl describes a high-level group meeting held by the group to discuss the logistics of the American People's Revolution that they were attempting to lead:

I brought up the subject of what’s going to happen after we take
over the government. You know, “we” become responsible then for
administrating, you know, 250 million people. And there was no answer. No one had given any thought to economics, how you are going to clothe and feed these people.

The only thing that I could get was that they expected the Cubans
and the North Vietnamese and the Chinese and the Russians would all
want to occupy different portions of the United States. They also
believed that their immediate responsibility would be to protect
against what they called “the counter-revolution.”

… I asked, “well what is going to happen to those people we can’t
reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” and the reply was that they’d
have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of
which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known
educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the
elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious. (Emphasis added)

Liberals often accuse conservatives of being paranoid, suffering from delusions of Red Army bogeymen swooping down on America and locking everyone away in concentration camps. But we aren't making this stuff up. It has been discussed at the highest levels of academia and in all the major camps of the progressive movement. Does it not frighten you that a group of domestic terrorists, led by Ivy League-educated elites, sat around coldly planning the murder of 1 out of every 10 Americans for none other than purely political reasons? Does it not frighten you that the leader of that group mentored our current leading Presidential candidate? Does it not frighten you that government records were searched for evidence to discredit and destroy an ordinary citizen who dared to challenge that Presidential candidate? Does it not frighten you that the previous Democratic presidential candidate believes that the Communist reeducation camps set up in Vietnam were no big deal, because the former inmates of those camps are now "thriving?"

Maybe we'll end up like Sweden, with suffocating government control over education, career choices, employment opportunities, salaries, benefits, profit levels, and retirements, yet without the need for a secret police force, or armed troops in the streets, or "reeducation" camps. Maybe. But the truth is that the progressive intellectual and moral "brights" who walk the marble halls of our finest universities and political institutions seem to have no problem with "social justice" in America at any price, even the intimidation, imprisonment, and death of anyone who dares to oppose their vision of Utopia. If that's how we must achieve a "better America," then God help us all.

Among conservatives, the "story that won't die" about Barack Obama is the tale of his close ties to 60's radicals who still identify very strongly with Marxism. The biggie is William Ayres. Another radical who has now been linked to Obama is Michael Klonsky.

Anyone who has studied the Progressive movement in America, from its turn-of-the-twentieth-century origins up until today, should not be surprised that Marxism has always been the dominant philosophical influence of the contemporary American left. In other words, progressivism has always been synonymous with Marxist thought, particularly Marx's concern for the plight of the underpriviledged, under-educated, underpaid, and under-represented working class.

And just in case you haven't yet figured it out, progressivism and its core values of egalitarianism and benevolent distribution of wealth (as opposed to conservatism and its core values of peace through strength and the free market) is the dominant philosophy of America's "chattering class," those who craft and perpetuate our cultural mythos --philosophers, historians, social scientists, educators, journalists, artists, and entertainers. Thus our contemporary cultural narrative, as taught in universities, as expounded in editorial pages, as explored through songs and poems and films, is steeped in progressivism, and by extension, Marxist ideals.

But that wasn't always the case. The paradigm shift that brought about the wholesale conversion of the cultural chattering class to progressivism and Marxism was WWII, because the evils committed by Germany -- considered by many to be the cultural center of Western Europe -- caused the academic world to drastically re-think the theological, philosophical, and economic ideals that shaped Europe during its great period of colonial expansion during the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries.

Western intellectuals tackled not only what went wrong in Germany, but also what was happening in lands that had long been oppressed by European colonial governments and military forces, specifically Africa, India, and Southeast Asia. Support for "people's revolutions" around the world grew rapidly among intellectuals, who by this time (the early 1960's) had begun to teach their students that the treatment of natives by Western colonial powers was just as evil as the oppression inflicted by the Nazis on the European nations that they conquered.

Thus a new generation of students was indoctrinated in the philosophies of Marx, and taught to believe that capitalism and military power were de facto marks of evil, and that the third world revolutionaries who promised political and cultural equality and financial equity for their people were truly the last best hope for freedom and stability in the world. "Baby Boomers" like William Ayres and Michael Klonsky were part of this new generation. They willfully ignored, and in many cases supported, the unmitigated use of violence that coincided with "people's revolutions," and stood unwaveringly behind any Communist regime that was opposed by the United States government. And in the late 1960's, the Baby Boomers became the dominant force behind American popular culture, which remains dominated by leftist ideals to this very day.

Another branch of progressivism, one that has been heavily involved in issues of social justice for more than a century, is populated by many Christian activists who have dedicated their lives to organizing and enabling the poor and oppressed. They are almost exclusively pacifist: while they support non-violent civil disobedience, they universally condemn warfare and the sale of arms and munitions for profit. They argue that the resources spent on warfare would be much better spent educating and equipping the poor, and breaking down the barriers between the different classes within our society. Christian progressives also espouse thrift, stewardship, charitable giving, and communal living. Dorothy Day's Hospitality Houses and Clarence Jordan's Koinonia Farm are two of the best known examples of Christian-oriented communal fellowship.

Because of their absolute refusal to support the U.S. military -- even for "just" causes such as the liberation of Europe from the Nazis -- and because of their continuing efforts in support of labor unions, community organizing, and unrestricted government benefits for the poor, Christian progressives have often been accused of being Communists; this was especially true during the "red scare" decade of the 1950's. In truth, many early Christian progressives did form partnerships with socialist and Communist activists, beginning with the period of economic and racial unrest that blanketed America after the First World War. Ironically, these Christians considered the nascent Communist movement to be one of their strongest allies in the struggle to give a voice to the working poor. (Today's evangelical Christians should use this curious fact as food for thought and discussion.)

Finally, black intellectuals have wrestled with the themes of socialism and government intervention for over a century. Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois led both sides of this debate: Washington argued that the black man was capable of achieving surpassing greatness if the government simply kept others from impeding him; DuBois felt that the government had an obligation to directly give back both the financial and social status that it had robbed from the black man. DuBois' side eventually won out, and his line of thinking culminated in the democratic socialism espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and in the Affirmative Action programs implemented by the Federal Government.

So what does all of this have to do with Barack Obama? Well, it's rather simple really -- Barack Obama is the first major Presidential nominee who is entirely a product of these three main streams of progressivism: Afrocentric democratic socialism, Christian social justice and pacifism, and the Marxist ideal of worker-led revolution, or "change" if you prefer. Obama's mother was a self-proclaimed Bohemian free spirit, politically progressive and disdainful of traditional Protestant Christianity. Obama went to Ivy League schools and was heavily involved in community organizing and social justice issues. He was mentored by William Ayres and became a trusted peer, aiding Ayres in his attempts to reform the public education system in Chicago. He struggled to identify with the black community (which originally shunned him because he is Ivy League educated and half white) so he joined Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ, perhaps the most Afrocentric church in Chicago and unabashed practitioners of social justice, community organizing, and Black Liberation Theology.

Naturally, Barack Obama is going to have many associations with people whom conservatives would immediately label "communist." (And a few associations with people such as William Ayres, who describe themselves as full-blown revolutionaries and Communists.)

So what does all of this mean? Well, first off let me say that I don't expect an immediate "people's revolution" and the establishment of the Democratic Socialist States of America if Obama wins. But what is troubling to me is that on the campaign trail, Obama himself has never been straightforward about where he stands within the continuum of hard-left, left, and moderate-left ideals. "Joe The Plumber" Wurzelbacher coaxed Obama into accidentally admitting that he believes government has an obligation to "spread the wealth around." But what else does Obama believe? It's probably safe to say that he doesn't directly endorse the kind of violent Communist revolution that Bill Ayers was hoping for thirty five years ago. But exactly what does he want? This?

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the
New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her
idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular
retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers
transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement
accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600
(inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also
have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the
government would pay a measly 3 percent return.

Such a plan would of course make it impossible for workers and employers to afford to continue contributing to private 401(k) retirement accounts. And on top of potentially massive corporate income and capital gains tax increases, the loss of market capital from such a plan would be devastating not only to the stock market, but to our economy as a whole.

Also, Obama has pledged to slash defense spending, to eliminate new weapons systems development, and to pursue unilateral disarmament. He has even pledged to meet with the leaders of dangerous nations without preconditions. Just exactly what are his views on defense and the necessity of military preparedness? We really don't know.

The true danger in an Obama victory lies in the seriousness with which his star-struck radical leftist and Marxist supporters will interpret such a win. Will it be considered a "mandate" for hard-left public policies and a final attempt to purge the last traces of traditional conservative political thought, free market economics, and Protestant Christianity from contemporary American culture?

A sobering truth about progressivism is that it is fundamentally incompatible with free thought. Progressivism celebrates the triumph of the human intellect, and such a philosophical underpinning necessitates the creation of intellectual classes, particularly the "enlightened" vs. the "helpless" or "ignorant." The "brights" know that eventually the inferior intellectual classes will tire of being controlled. I absolutely believe that given enough access to government power, contemporary progressive intellectuals will try to stifle any dissent or inquiry that deviates from the progressive party line, because deep down inside they know that such chilling policies are the only way to keep the "non-enlightened" from becoming discontent with their intellectual overlords.

My concern about all of this can be summed up in one of Ronald Reagan's famous quotes -- it's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that simply isn't true. If Barack Obama wins, we will have a perfect opportunity to find out just how much Progressives really know -- or don't have a common-sense clue about.

...

ADDED: Here's yet another video about Barack Obama that is being circulated through conservative blogs:

The video contains audio excerpts from a 1995 interview with Obama about his book Dreams of My Father. During the interview, Obama uses a favorite stereotype of progressives -- the "white executive" who lives out in the suburbs because he "doesn't want to pay taxes to inner city children." (I wonder what Obama thinks today, about his own Rev. Jeremiah Wright moving to one of Chicago's choicest suburbs?)

Obama also articulates the belief that his own salvation is dependent upon "a collective salvation of the country," which in turn is directly related to the elimination of systems that allow certain groups to prosper, while other groups (specifically African-Americans) are doing "bad if not worse."

How do we save the country? We "make sacrifices."

Obama is not just espousing Marxism here. Obama's statements also represent one of the fundamental tenants of Liberation Theology, which is that God not only judges individuals, but nations (that is, communities bound by covenant in the Old Testament sense, not just modern nation-states). The "Black Liberation Theology" of James Cone that Rev. Jeremiah Wright
so fervently taught to his flock at Trinity UCC is simply an
Afrocentric variation of classic liberation theology.

Liberation theology expands the definition of "sin" beyond personal transgressions; it teaches that communities can collectively sin, based on how they treat the least among themselves. (Recall that God judged the entire nation of Egypt, not just Pharaoh.) Liberation
theologians teach that even though God's plan for personal salvation
has been fulfilled through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, God's nature is consistent, and He still judges righteousness
collectively, just as He did in the Old Testament -- specifically among
communities who claim to follow Him and whose leaders publicly pray for
His
guidance. Under such a standard, of course, the United States stands
to be judged most harshly by God; this makes American liberation
theologians particularly fearful, because there have always been
drastic inequalities between the poorest and the richest in our nation.

I have blogged about economic injustice and God's judgment of nations elsewhere. And while I agree with much of what liberation theology teaches, I am strongly concerned about the Marxist plans that Obama and his minions have for America. There is a massive difference between a people led to justice through the work of the Holy Spirit voluntarily sacrificing in order to create equality and security among their bretheren, and a group of ruling elites forcing the masses to "sacrifice" in order to feed an enormous, inefficient, and corrupt bureaucracy. Such a system is guaranteed to make everyone poorer, and to do little else.

Here's a great example of the kind of eye-rolling stupidity we are forced to endure during Presidential campaigns.

The press, still smarting from The Chosen One's crummy performance at last week's Saddleback Forum tried to trip up John McCain (and insinuate that he is an "elitist," whatever that means) by asking him how many houses he and his wife own. McCain didn't know, and said that he'd have to check out the answer.

For the informationally challenged, here is a little background. Cindy McCain (née Hensley) is the daughter of James Hensley, who owned and operated one of the largest Anheuser-Busch distributorships in the United States. When John McCain married Cindy in 1980, they signed a prenuptial agreement, whereby she retained control of her family's assets. When her father died in 2000, Cindy became chair of Hensley & Co, which is currently valued at around $300 million; before that time, she was not involved directly with the family business. Because of their prenup, John McCain doesn't manage her money or her investments. And it's pretty obvious to me that these homes are investments, not residences.

Naturally, John McCain doesn't know all the details of his wife's business.

Now if you want to make a big deal out of this, here are fair questions to ask, if you want to compare McCain and Obama on this issue:

2. Since these homes are investments and not residences, maybe we should ask Obama about his investments. Could he lay out his and Michelle's entire portfolios from memory for us? Could he tell us, without review, what all of the sources of income on his and Michelle's 2007 income tax returns were? I doubt it; I also doubt that anyone in the press would ever ask this of him.

Now, how many of you "average" people out there had a shady real estate developer join you in the purchase of your homestead and its surrounding property? How many of you have so many sources of income that you probably couldn't name them all off the top of your head? Is Barack Obama really "one of you?" Is anyone, once they reach the level of Presidential contender? By the way, the closer you inspect the Obama money trail, the dirtier it looks.

Further, how many homes do John Kerry and Tereza Heinz (Kerry?) own? And isn't it interesting that no one asked John Kerry how many homes he owned during the 2004 campaign?

For that matter, how many homes does the Kennedy family own? Or the Rockefellers?

And for those of you who keep missing the irony, here it is. You see, Republicans are supposed to be rich, evil snob bastards. But Democrats, well they are the friends of the downtrodden, the advocates of the poor, the protectors of starving children, etc. They eat, sleep, and drink the plight of those mired in poverty. Yet four years ago, the Democrats nominated a haughty, arrogant playboy married to a gazillion-heiress, who then chose a sleazy millionaire trial lawyer as his running mate.

Pastor Warren says, "I’m going to ask them questions about character, competence, about
values, vision, virtue, about their convictions in leadership, about
their experience ... Every one of your decisions you make is based on your world view. So
I’m going to ask them about abortion. I’m going to ask them about the
definition of marriage, but I’m also going to ask them more than that ..."

It is interesting that a church and a well-known and respected Christian pastor are the hosts of this event. If anything, it illustrates just how closely religious and political beliefs are to a significant number of Americans.

But during the interview, Matthew 25, a liberal-leaning Christian PAC lead by influential author Brian McLaren, will be running an ad suggesting that Barack Obama is on a stronger moral footing because -- unlike John McCain -- he has never been divorced. Writing at SmartChristian.com, Dr. Andy Jackson notes, "Now the so-called progressive Christians are becoming as entangled in partisan politics as the Moral Majority once did."

I will shortly be posting a multi-part review of McLaren's latest book, Everything Must Change. I am trying to write a review that is as non-political as possible, focusing on the theology and praxis that McLaren claims will transform the Christian narrative into something that can eventually displace the broken narratives of pleasure, power, beauty, and wealth that control our world today.

McLaren is a good writer, and although some of his ideas are still rough he makes some compelling arguments in his book. However, his decision to unequivocally align himself with the Barack Obama presidential campaign will make a non-partisan review of his book difficult.

Blogger Jim Hoft has a good roundup of the Republican floor speeches made after the Republicans refused to vacate the House chamber, despite the fact that Speaker Pelosi suspended the session and ordered lights and cameras turned off.

This bit of political theater proved to be an exciting spectacle for D. C. tourists. One can only hope that it will persuade the Democrats to allow an "up or down" vote on offshore drilling.

I'm not shy about charging liberals with Bush Derangement Syndrome when appropriate, and criticizing obviously political moves that seem more about damaging Republicans than benefiting the country. Specifically, during the last seven years Democrats have very often acted in ways that placed their own self-interest above our efforts to combat terrorism.

But I do not feel animosity toward the liberal/progressive worldview. I have traditionally described the liberal/conservative difference as one of glass half empty vs. glass half full. Both sides want a better America, but one side chooses to concentrate on the defects that need correcting, while the other concentrates on all the things we have done right and asks why we can't help others to achieve the same things. As Moran points out in his essay, both are essential for true democracy.

I wanted to write at length about the recent brouhaha between the White House and the Democrats, led by Barack Obama, over President Bush's use of the word appeasement in describing attempts to negotiate with terrorist organizations and rogue states.

President Bush delivered his half-hour long speech to the Israeli Knesset as part of the 60th anniversary celebration of the nation of Israel. Here is a longer excerpt of the relevant portion of his speech:

The fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of
our time. It is more than a clash of arms. It is a clash of visions, a
great ideological struggle. On the one side are those who defend the
ideals of justice and dignity with the power of reason and truth. On
the other side are those who pursue a narrow vision of cruelty and
control by committing murder, inciting fear, and spreading lies.

This struggle is waged with the technology of the 21st century, but
at its core it is an ancient battle between good and evil. The killers
claim the mantle of Islam, but they are not religious men. No one who
prays to the God of Abraham could strap a suicide vest to an innocent
child, or blow up guiltless guests at a Passover Seder, or fly planes
into office buildings filled with unsuspecting workers. In truth, the
men who carry out these savage acts serve no higher goal than their own
desire for power. They accept no God before themselves. And they
reserve a special hatred for the most ardent defenders of liberty,
including Americans and Israelis.

And that is why the founding charter of Hamas calls for the
“elimination” of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah
chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” That is why Osama bin Laden
teaches that “the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest
duties.” And that is why the President of Iran dreams of returning the
Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the
map.

There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in
these men and try to explain away their words. It’s natural, but it is
deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn
responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have
seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse
hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st
century.

Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists
and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they
have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before.
As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator
declared: “Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might
have been avoided.” We have an obligation to call this what it is — the
false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by
history. (Applause.)

Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with
Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a
tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace,
and America utterly rejects it. Israel’s population may be just over 7
million. But when you confront terror and evil, you are 307 million
strong, because the United States of America stands with you.
(Applause.)

America stands with you in breaking up terrorist networks and
denying the extremists sanctuary. America stands with you in firmly
opposing Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Permitting the world’s
leading sponsor of terror to possess the world’s deadliest weapons
would be an unforgivable betrayal for future generations. For the sake
of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.
(Applause.)

Ultimately, to prevail in this struggle, we must offer an
alternative to the ideology of the extremists by extending our vision
of justice and tolerance and freedom and hope. These values are the
self-evident right of all people, of all religions, in all the world
because they are a gift from the Almighty God. Securing these rights is
also the surest way to secure peace. Leaders who are accountable to
their people will not pursue endless confrontation and bloodshed. Young
people with a place in their society and a voice in their future are
less likely to search for meaning in radicalism. Societies where
citizens can express their conscience and worship their God will not
export violence, they will be partners in peace.

Barack Obama immediately released a statement condemning this speech and accusing the Bush White House of deliberately targeting him, since Obama has stated publicly that one of the immediate goals of his administration would be to meet with Iran without preconditions. (Writing at National Review Online, Andrew McCarthy noted, "Can Somebody Explain to Me how Obama sat in Wright’s church for 20
years and managed never to hear anything, but hears 20 seconds of a
Bush speech that doesn’t mention him and perceives a shameful personal
attack?")

JOHN
EDWARDS: The president of the United States should not engaged [sic] in
this kind of politics outside the shores of the United States. It's
just not right!

Of course the list of Democrats who have attempted to undermine President Bush while on foreign soil is a long and shameful one -- Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Jimmy Carter, Jim McDermott, Jay Rockefeller, etc. Such a claim is one of the biggest lies told so far in this year's presidential campaign.

Instead of tough talk and no action, we need to do what Kennedy, Nixon
and Reagan did and use all elements of American power -- including
tough, principled, and direct diplomacy - to pressure countries like
Iran and Syria.

And earlier, after receiving the first round of criticism for his plan to meet with Iran without preconditions, Obama explained,

"I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but
wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like
Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did."

Unfortunately, history does not support Barack Obama's claims. Roosevelt never negotiated with Mussolini, Hitler, or Tojo. Roosevelt and Truman both held summit meetings with Stalin, but Stalin was an ally of the United States in our fight against Hitler. And the only negotiations between Truman and Stalin, the meetings at Yalta and Potsdam, directly paved the way for Stalin to enslave Eastern Europe behind the Iron Curtain. Likewise, it was John F. Kennedy's 1961 summit meeting with Khrushchev that led Khrushchev to believe that JFK was an inexperienced leader who would have trouble making hard decisions. And after Kennedy's failed Bay of Pigs invasion, Khrushchev believed that Americans were "too liberal to fight." Khrushchev's mind was changed only after JFK brought the world to the brink of nuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis.

And lest we forget what Ronald Reagan's position on appeasement was:

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.

If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.

Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them
that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday
when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be
voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually,
morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he
has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees
than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those
voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price
of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round
the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead
who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer
after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance.
This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured
by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world,
we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something
going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty." (emphasis added)

All of this leads one to ask, what is the purpose of negotiation, when should it be used, and how should it be used?